The question of adequately representing third world science in
international databases was the main issue at a 1985 conference
organized at the ISI in Philadelphia. The title of the final
conference report, "Strengthening the Coverage of Third
World Science," pointed to a glaring gap [62]. The
conference participants estimated that only about half of the
science produced in the third world that meets international
standards of excellence is included in the ISI database.

In fact, as D.J. Frame [29] so correctly wrote, it all depends
on what you are trying to assess. "If the purpose of the
bibliometric indicators is to help in the building of a national
scientific inventory, telling us what kind of research is being
performed at different institutions, then coverage of local as
well as mainstream publications would seem important. On the
other hand, if one is primarily interested in investigating Third
World contributions to world science, then publication counts
taken from a restrictive journal set would seem most
appropriate." Thus, when Garfield prepared his "Mapping
Science in the Third World" [39], he was actually measuring
the impact of third world scientific output on the international
scientific community, using, as his only criterion, the part of
the third world scientific output that was cited and used by the
international scientific community. For this reason, it is not
surprising that the impact was found to be slight.

Mainstream science production is even more narrowly
concentrated than is national wealth expressed as GNP. Ten
countries produce more than 80 per cent of the international
scientific literature. Except for India, which has maintained a
steady ranking of eighth place since the beginning of the 1970s,
all the countries are members of the industrialized world [30,
14]. Between 1981 and 1985, the developing countries produced 5.8
per cent of the world's mainstream scientific output, of which
3.7 per cent came from Asia, 1.1 per cent from Latin America, 0.4
per cent from sub-Saharan Africa, and 0.6 per cent from the
Middle East [14]. Even if we challenge the representative value
of these estimates, especially considering the database used, we
still have to accept that mainstream science from the third world
is marginal compared with the rest of the world.

Fifteen leading developing countries, ranked according to
number of mainstream publications produced

1973a

1981-1985b

Rank

Country

Number of publications

Country

Number of publications
(annual averages)

1

India

6,880

India

10,978

2

Argentina

764

People's Rep. China

2,146

3

Egypt

683

Brazil

1,498

4

Brazil

573

Argentina

1,124

5

Mexico

368

Egypt

1,029

6

Chile

356

Nigeria

790

7

Nigeria

280

Mexico

709

8

Venezuela

200

Chile

590

9

Taiwan

186

Taiwan

509

10

Iran

174

Hong Kong

365

11

Malaysia

138

Saudi Arabia

319

12

Kenya

125

South Korea

312

13

Singapore

120

Venezuela

311

14

Thailand

117

Kenya

248

15

Lebanon

114

Singapore

214

Sources: a. ref. 30, table 4, pp. 507-508; b. ref. 14.

Among the developing countries, India, the uncontested leader,
produces five times more mainstream scientific publications than
the People's Republic of China. The table lists the top 15
producers of mainstream scientific literature in the third world
for 1973 and for the period 1981-1985. This list changed
considerably during the reference period. Production in certain
leading countries in 1973, like Brazil and Nigeria, rose sharply.
Some countries with small - even very small scientific output in
1973 started climbing, e.g. Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, and South
Korea. Other countries, like Iran and Lebanon, in the throes of
political and military unrest, lost their standing. Most of the
countries on the list produced substantially more in the years
following 1973, but the per country mainstream scientific
production remained small, even in countries at the top of the
list, like Egypt, Mexico, and Nigeria.

A comparison with the production of scientific institutions in
the OECD countries shows that a country such as Egypt produces
less than the Harvard University Medical School [29]. The total
production of sub-Saharan Africa, excluding South Africa, at
present represents about one tenth of the scientific production
of a European country such as France [38].

Referring to the ISI and other international databases, recent
studies have provided interesting information on the position of
the various countries on the mainstream science supplier list and
their impact on world science, but the description of how science
is constructed in these countries, the researchers' scientific
strategy, and their participation in national and international
science is incomplete and often inaccurate. These studies,
moreover, tend, either implicitly or explicitly, to assign
research scientists of the peripheral scientific communities to
two distinct categories: scientists who "really count,"
in other words, who are known to the international scientific
community since they publish overseas in influential
international journals; and the others, whose "local"
science lacks originality and, at best, is published in low
circulation local journals.

Several other recent studies justify a revision of this
exaggerated but widely held - caricature of science production in
the periphery [19, 23, 34]. They substantiate the thesis that the
bibliometric indicators based on an international database do not
accurately assess the scientific output from the periphery,
especially from the developing countries. International databases
do not provide enough information to measure accurately the
science produced in these countries and assess the scientific
thrust of the countries of the periphery in general. Combining
and comparing several international databases can improve the
relevance of bibliometric indicators but will not tell the whole
story. The international databases need to improve their coverage
of science produced in the developing countries, and local
databases need to be created and consulted. Databases at the
local level, accompanied by periodic production and dissemination
of documented analytical bulletins, would not only serve to
better measure scientific output in the third world, but would
also in time enhance South-South and North-South documentation
exchange, as well as both the visibility and accessibility of
developing countries' scientific output.

Given these handicaps, it is not surprising that third world
scientific production and its impact are slight. The following
analysis compares overall figures on numbers of publications per
researcher with the findings of the survey of the lists of
publications of 213 third world scientists who received grants
from the International Foundation for Science [33, 36]. The
latter produced on average 0.5 publications per year as sole
author and 0.7 as co-author - that is to say slightly more than
half that of American researchers working in related scientific
disciplines [15]. Furthermore, half (55 per cent) of their total
scientific production was published in local journals. Asian
scientists tend to publish more than African scientists. In
addition, Asian and Latin American scientists publish more
locally (approximately 60 per cent) than African scientists
(approximately 40 per cent). These percentages are exceptionally
high in comparison with industrialized countries: in western
Europe, scientists publish 12 per cent of their work in foreign
journals, while the figure for Japan is 25 per cent [39].

When reflecting on these percentages we should remember that
there are many more local journals in Asia and Latin America than
in Africa. Logically, the more the scientists publish abroad, the
more they work in collaboration with foreign scientists. Garfield
[39] has shown that articles by researchers in developing
countries have a greater impact (on the international scientific
community, measured in terms of number of citations per article)
when they are co-authored by researchers from industrialized
countries. Here we come up against the dilemma of the strategic
scientific choices that researchers in developing countries, in
common with most researchers in peripheral scientific
communities, have to make between participation in mainstream
science (the most used, most visible, and most frequently cited)
and the resolution of local problems through "inward
looking" research. Co-authoring with foreign scientists is
the most prevalent among scientists who studied or worked in
post-doctoral positions abroad. In most cases, however, these
publications are produced in the years immediately following the
stay abroad; sustained active collaboration with foreign
scientists is rare if not reactivated by frequent stay abroad.
The fields in which they publish most, such as chemistry, are
also the fields in which they publish most abroad. We have also
observed a relatively significant difference in productivity by
gender, men publishing more than women. Women also tend to
publish more in local journals than men.

With very few exceptions, English-speaking scientists publish
in English, whereas more than one-third of the publications by
Latin American scientists and almost one-fifth of those of
French-speaking scientists were found to be in English. A
case-study conducted in a French-speaking African country
(Senegal) showed that English was increasingly used as a language
of publication. I also found a relatively significant use of
local languages in certain Asian countries, e.g. Indonesia, where
more than half (52 per cent) of the published works of scientists
appear in Indonesian languages, Thailand (28 per cent in Thai),
and South Korea (18 per cent in Korean). Publication strategies
differ greatly, depending on both the country and the discipline.
Unlike South Korea, in Singapore all the scientific journals are
in English. A glance at the lists of references consulted and
cited confirms the hypothesis that the different linguistic
worlds are almost "language proof," especially between
the English and French languages. Spanish- and
Portuguese-speaking scientists often cite literature in English;
this is rarely the case for French speaking scientists. And
references by English-language scientists are drawn exclusively
from literature written in English.

Most of the scientists publish in both national and
international journals. Publication strategies differ according
to country and to scientific discipline. Third world scientists
cite references essentially (78 per cent) from mainstream
scientific literature, which they seem to receive later than
their colleagues in the centre, since nearly half the references
are over 10 years old, as against 29 per cent of the references
cited by scientists from the centre countries. An analysis of the
citations indicates that third world scientists use articles from
national journals in smaller proportion but much sooner than
articles from international journals.

Citation modes usually work against third world scientists in
particular and scientists at the periphery in general because, as
we have seen above, much of the work is published in local
journals that are only circulated within the country. The third
world scientists are caught in an especially vicious circle,
because even when their findings are published in highly
influential, prestigious scientific journals in the centre, they
are far less often cited than writings by their colleagues in the
centre [2]. Recent work on referencing within the Brazilian
scientific community showed that "citation patterns are
significantly influenced by factors 'external' to the scientific
realm and thus reflect neither simply the quality, influence, nor
even the impact of the research work referred to" [79]. The
place of publication strongly influences the number of times a
publication is cited [56]. Arunachalam and Manorama [3, p. 395]
explain that many leading Indian scientists have had the
irritation of seeing work published by Western scientists after
theirs had been cited; the Western scientists got the credit and
their own original work remained unacknowledged. I also found
that third world scientists often cite colleagues in
industrialized countries, but rarely cite other third world
scientists, even when their works are published in well-read
international journals. This behaviour seems to be the result of
a rather widespread, although difficult to prove, conviction
among them that quoting works published by colleagues in
industrialized countries brings more credit to their own work.

In sum, third world scientists often cite their colleagues
from the developed countries, but their own work - being
relatively "invisible" - is seldom cited. They often
feel caught in a dilemma: either adopt the habit of scientists
from industrialized countries and publish in international
journals to become more "visible" and gain
international standing, or else seek national recognition by
publishing in local journals, and sometimes in local languages,
thus being condemned to non-existence, or at best, marginal
existence in mainstream science. The general trend is to adopt
the two strategies together.

Considerable efforts have been made, particularly during the
1960s and 1970s, to develop a science and technology potential in
many developing countries. Most countries have experienced a boom
in student enrolments, particularly during the 1970s and 1980s,
while many new universities were created outside the capital
cities. The number of scientists has also increased significantly
during the latter period, with annual increase rates often higher
than in industrialized countries. Substantial efforts have also
been made to build up research institutions and to support the
emergence of national scientific communities. Yet the results are
not always satisfactory. It was long believed that the
accumulation of adequate resources (scientists, institutions, and
funding) would automatically generate productivity. We now know
that the availability of such resources, although necessary, is
not sufficient to guarantee achieving the scientific results
needed for development. It is not enough just to build
institutions, train good scientists, and provide them with proper
supplies.

Going beyond the availability of resources, research
activities need a certain permanency through greater recognition
by society. The scientists need to be able to find their place in
a scientific community that has its own legitimate place in
society. Wherever scientific communities are emerging, the debate
henceforth centres on the professionalization of their
scientists, the conditions under which scientific activities are
performed, and the capacity of the scientific communities to
reproduce themselves and sustain their activities. Therefore, a
number of conditions should be fulfilled for supporting the
emergence and reproduction of endogenous scientific communities
in developing countries.

The strategies adopted by the scientists are the results of
negotiations carried out in a socio-economic, cultural, and
political environment that is not always conducive to a
scientific outlook and societal recognition of research science
as a profession. In addition to proper status and better salaries
and working conditions, the emergence of tight-knit and lively
scientific communities should be promoted, for example by
establishing active Academies, professional associations, and
scientific journals. Encouragement should also be given to
activities such as national science days, science awards, science
weeks for young people, annual conferences of national science
associations, and also exhibits, science museums, and clubs that
attract young people to science and scientific careers. Education
is also important in shaping attitudes and scientific minds.

The dependency of most developing countries on (above all)
Europe and the United States to train their scientists is not
compatible with the creation of an independent scientific
tradition and the emergence of a truly autonomous scientific
community. It is becoming increasingly urgent to shift the
"centre of gravity" of doctoral level education from
the North to the South. This would require a revised cooperation
between the Northern host countries (which often offer
scholarships) and the developing countries themselves. The
process will entail redefining aid policies (and the risk for the
North of losing some of its influence) and also, in many cases,
developing countries' education policies. The substantial sums
that are still being spent by the countries that offer
scholarships could be used by the universities in the South to
establish or strengthen doctoral courses in disciplines of
national priority. Strengthening national academia would
contribute to improving the structuring of the emerging
scientific communities as the result of added input from both the
national scientific potential and the student body. This is
essential if all the actors, from confirmed senior scientists to
Ph.D. candidates to regular students, are to keep up with science
in the making and remain up to date on progress in their
disciplines.

To gain in legitimacy, the strengthened national universities
should also be better linked not only to the other research and
higher learning institutions but also to the society as a whole.
New answers should be found to sustain the university as a
socially relevant institution and to transform its attributes
beyond the neoclassical university [45]. In many countries the
situation of the national universities is so critical that it may
very well lead to curtailment of university research. Many
countries have found no other solution than to circumvent the
problem by creating specialized research institutes outside the
university, usually with no responsibility for graduate and
postgraduate education. (This is not the case in India, where the
technological institutes, renowned as poles of excellence,
provide close interaction between education and research.)

More historical and sociological research is also needed to
achieve better understanding of the conditions that need to be
fulfilled for a scientific community of the periphery to emerge,
develop, and reproduce. The respective role of the different
actors involved also requires further investigation. There is in
particular a lack of studies on the roles and professions of
engineers and technical workers in both the public and private
sectors in developing countries (an exception is Longuenesse et
al. [57]). More studies are also needed on the transfer of
successful models of institutions and/or on institutional
innovations such as the institutes of technology and the
fashionable technopoles to improve understanding of the extent to
which they could contribute to better linkages between the
academic world and the productive sector, as well as to the
reproduction of the national scientific communities.

50 Krishna, V.V. "Scientists in Laboratories: A
Comparative Study on the Organization of Science and Goal
Orientation of Scientists in CSIRO (Australia) and CSIR (India)
Institutions." Ph.D. diss. University of Wollongong,
Australia. 1987.

51 Krishna, V.V. "The Colonial 'Model' and the Emergence
of National Science in India: 1876-1920." Paper presented at
the International Colloquium on Science and Empires, Unesco,
Paris, 2-6 April 1990.

52 Krishna, V.V., and A. Jain. "Country Report:
Scientific Research. Science Policy and Social Studies of
Science: and Technology in India." Paper presented at the
First Workshop on the Emergence of Scientific Communities in the
Developing Countries, 22-27 April 1990, Paris: ORSTOM.